I have often played with numbers structured in 6x6 fields. With 1-6 in the first upper line,7-12 in the second and so forth and so on. No magic and no rocket science there.You could bet that one missing number comes to unite other numbers in any vertical or horizontalgroup. Examples: If #3 and #5 had come, you could bet #4. If #24 and #36 had come, you could bet #30. You could easily find more examples. Only the four numbers in the corners (#1, #6, #31, and #36) would never be wagered in any example, if we focused on the horizontal and vertical groups.UNITING NUMBERS IN DIAGONALS SEEMS TO WORK BETTER.Examples: #1 and #15 came. Bet #8 (flat betting or masse égale). # 24 and # 34 came. Bet #29.

Why on Earth would such a diagonal procedure work better?The answer might be A MORE LIMITED BET SELECTION!With this diagonal procedure we never bet any of the TWENTY numbers at the border line, so to speak. None of them could ever unite any numbers in any diagonal. To bet too many numbers is rather common.After just one hit our session ends. Good luck! Dane

This is a bit like your idea of the 4 phases is it not? In that strategy you could bet the edges if that edge number would complete a diagonal or set of 5 in horizontal/vertical direction and so on. How did you go with this in the end?

I have a little theory as to why this type of strategy might (and I say MIGHT) work.

In a grid such as 6x6 it seems to me that what random does NOT do is rain numbers down evenly spread about the "tile" - usually. Not like a true raindrop pattern - raindrops on a tile does seem to be fairly evenly spread. So if this is true then you will see "clumping" appear and this means that, as the grid fills, then in order for a new number to be found it will have to be abutting other numbers rather than in a clear space. Of course the evenly spread situation can occur too because it is one of the possible random patterns that can appear and we will have a losing session when these turn up.

I did play around with the 4 phases a little bit and when it wins it does astonishingly well - but when we are in a phase where there are lots of repeaters, OR all the new numbers go into the clear spaces, then we lose big time.

To sqzbox: Yes, it is a bit like the 4 phases. I too lost in the end with that. I find your theory as to why this type of strategy MIGHT work fascinating.To Reyth: Now I have the time to show the procedure in details as promised. I grab an old Permanenz from Germany.